| Literature DB >> 32762511 |
Abstract
The recent appearance of COVID-19 virus has created a global crisis due to unavailability of aene">ny vacciene">ne or drug that caene">n effectively aene">nd determiene">nistically work agaiene">nst it. Naturally, different possibilities (iene">ncludiene">ng herbal mediciene">nes haviene">ng knowene">n therapeutic sigene">nificaene">nce) have been explored by the scientists. The systematic scientific study (begiene">nniene">ng with iene">n silico study) of herbal mediciene">nes iene">n particular aene">nd aene">ny drug iene">n general is now possible as the structural compoene">nents (proteiene">ns) ofEntities:
Keywords: Tinospora cordifolia ; 3CLpro; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; berberine; β-sitosterol
Year: 2020 PMID: 32762511 PMCID: PMC7484574 DOI: 10.1080/07391102.2020.1803968
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Biomol Struct Dyn ISSN: 0739-1102
Figure 1.Morphology of Tinospora cordifolia.
Figure 2.Different phytoconstituents extracted compounds from Guduchi Pippali (Giloy) or Tinospora cordifolia as ligand molecules. [# from Gausswiew, rest from Drugbank].
Figure 3.(a). Target variable viral proteins (I, II) SARS-CoV-2 protease enzyme Mpro or 3CLpro as the receptor. (b) Ramachandran plot for both the receptor protein.
Molecular configuration and drug likeliness properties of proposed ligand drug molecules for COVID-19 by SWISS ADME data.
| Drug likeness properties | berberine (a) | choline (b) | β-sitosterol (c) | tetrahydropalmatine (d) | octacosanol (e) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 336.361 | 104.1708 | 414.718 | 355.434 | 410.7595 | ||
| 4 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 1 | ||
| 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | ||
| 2 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 26 | ||
| 94.87 | 30 | 133.23 | 103.99 | 137.87 | ||
| 40.80 Ų | 2 0.23 Ų | 20.23 Ų | 40.16 Ų | 20.23 Ų | ||
| −0.00 | −2.41 | 5.05 | 3.69 | 7.20 | ||
| 3.62 | −0.40 | 9.34 | 3.24 | 13.61 | ||
| 2.19 | −0.32 | 8.02 | 2.52 | 10.14 | ||
| 2.53 | −3.46 | 6.73 | 2.20 | 7.07 | ||
| 7.24 | −0.57 | 7.04 | 3.75 | 10.96 | ||
| 9.80 | −1.38 | 7.24 | 3.08 | 9.80 | ||
| yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | ||
| yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | ||
| yes | Partly yes (2 violation) | No | yes | No | ||
| yes | yes | yes (1 violation) | yes | yes | ||
| yes | yes (1 violation) | Partly yes (2 violation) | yes | No | ||
| 0.55 | 0.55 | 0.55 | 0.55 | 0.55 | ||
| 3.14 | 1 | 6.30 | 3.59 | 3.72 | ||
| High | Yes | Low | High | Low | ||
| Yes | No | No | Yes | No | ||
| Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | ||
| −5.78 cm/s | −7.22 cm/s | −2.20 cm/s | −6.17 cm/s | 0.86 cm/s | ||
| −5.92 | −1.26 | −6.19 | −5.87 | −10.53 | ||
| 4.00e − 04 | 5.74e + 00 | 2.69e − 04 | 4.81e − 04 | 1.20e − 08 | ||
| Rat LD50: 2.7834 mol/kg | Oral rat LD50: 3400 mg/kg | Not Available | Not Available | Not Available | ||
Binding mode of each ligand:protein (Berberine: 6LU7) complex using molecular docking for Protein (I).
| Pose | Binding affinity (G) (kcal/mol) | Hydrogen bonded interaction number | Drieding energy (ligand) | Drieding energy (protein) | Dipolemoment of ligand(debye) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | −7.3 | 0 | 414.419 | 6,044.79 | 1.676 |
| 2 | −7.3 | 2 | 415.725 | 6,045.91 | 1.677 |
| 3 | −7.1 | 0 | 412.076 | 6,042.69 | 1.675 |
| 4 | −7.0 | 0 | 414.361 | 6,044.95 | 1.68 |
| 5 | −7.0 | 0 | 415.549 | 6,045.57 | 1.672 |
| 6 | −6.9 | 0 | 414.623 | 6,044.94 | 1.676 |
| 7 | −6.9 | 0 | 414.409 | 6,044.77 | 1.68 |
| 8 | −6.9 | 0 | 415.07 | 6,046.38 | 1.68 |
| 9 | −6.8 | 0 | 415.635 | 6,046.05 | 1.675 |
Interaction detail for different ligands: berberine, β-sitosterol, choline, tetrahydropalmatine and octacosanol with receptor protein I (6LU7).
| Ligand | Best Binding affinity (kcal/mole) | Hydrogen bonded interaction (protein donor: ligand acceptor, distance in Å) | Hydrophobic interaction (protein donor: ligand acceptor, distance in Å) | Dipole moment of ligand (debye) | Drieding energy between protein and ligand | Inhibition constant (M) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| berberine | −7.3 | (A:THR25:HG1 - :UNK0:O, 2.11198) | (:UNK0 - A:HIS163, 3.61032) | 1.67 | 415.725 | 4.4 × 10−6 |
| β-sitosterol | −7.1 | (:UNK0:O - A:ARG188:O, 3.12606) | (:MET165 -:UNK0, 4.54304) | 1.761 | 1280.56 | 6.16 × 10−6 |
| choline | −3.4 | (:UNK0:O - A:TYR54:OH, 2.8027) | (:UNK0:C - A:HIS41, 3.8048) | 5.374 | 104.198 | 3.2 × 10−3 |
| tetrahydropalmatine | −6.4 | (:UNK0:C - A:MET165, 4.73002) | 2.688 | 373.677 | 2.01 × 10−5 | |
| octacosanol | −6.6 | (:UNK0:O - A:LEU141:O, 3.37559) | (:UNK0 - A:ALA191, 4.8791) | 1.257 | 414.094 | 1.43 × 10−5 |
Figure 4.Donor: acceptor surface and possible types of interactions in best pose structure obtained from molecular docking for berberine: 6LU7 and berberine: 6W63.
Figure 6.Optimized geometry of receptor 6LU7 and berberine: 6LU7 complex.
MD simulation output of time resolved trajectory of 6LU7 in its bare state without any ligand and in the complex state with ligand berberine.
| Serial no | Parameter | Bare 3CLpro protease (6LU7) | 6LU7 + berberine complex | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Range | Mean | Range | ||
| 1. | SR Columbic Interaction energy (kJ mol−1) | NA | NA | −51.7714 ± 3.8 | 20–−80 |
| 2. | SR LJ Interaction energy (kJ mol−1) | NA | NA | −130.261 ± 1.1 | −80–−160 |
| 3. | Average Interaction Energy energy (kJ mol−1) | NA | NA | −186.95 ± 5.1 | |
| 4. | RMSD (nm) | 0.12 | 0.08–0.16 | 0.16 | 0.08–0.18 |
| 5. | Inter H-Bonds | NA | NA | 0.026 | 0–2 |
| Intra H-Bonds | 630 | 614–653 | 213 | 196–220 | |
| 6. | Radius of gyration | 2.25 ± 0.01 | 2.25–2.26 | 2.25 ± 0.01 | 2.25–2.26 |
| 7. | SASA (nm2) | 22 | 19–26 | 148 | 146–156 |
| 9. | Potential Energy (kJ mol−1) | −1.27 × 106 ± 56.7 | −7.3 × 105–−1.3 × 106 | −0.2 × 106 ± 38.77 | −2.4 × 104–−0.2 × 106 |
| 10. | Total Energy (kJ mol−1) | −1.17 × 106 ± 0.01 × 106 | −1.3 × 106–−1.0 × 106 | −1.8 × 10 5 ± 0.01 × 105 | −1.8 × 105–−1.7 × 105 |
Figure 7.Total energy of berberine: 6LU7 Complex structure in time scale 1000 ps.
Figure 8.Root mean square Deviation (RMSD) backbone graphs of 6LU7 in its bare state and in complex with berberine. Complex structure is compared with its crystal form also.
Figure 9.Graphs of Root mean square fluctuations (RMSF) of 6LU7 in its bare state and in berberine: 6LU7 complex.
Figure 10.Intermolecular hydrogen bond numbers between berberine and 6LU7 in their complex (berberine: 6LU7) form for the full scale time trajectory.
Figure 11.Total radius of gyration of bare 6LU7 and berberine:6LU7 for the time trajectory 1000 ps.
Figure 12.Total nonbonded interaction energy between 6LU7 and berberine in their complex form for the time trajectory 1000 ps. Total energy is the combination of Coulombic and Lennard Jones interaction energies.